Who Does Jesus Criticize?

Happy Spring weekend to everyone. It is a good day for the Wolff family. My wife and daughter number 2 are hone, happy and safe. We are still on Spring break. And my nephew Bryan and his wife a healthy daughter Naomi born to them yesterday. There was some concern that the baby had stopped growing, and that there may some health issues. But the baby came out at 5 pounds, 6 ounces, and with everyone healthy. Praise God for the newest member of Bryan's family!

My most recent project is to examine the Gospel of Matthew and see what people and actions Jesus is critical of. Yes, I know God is love, and Jesus really wants us to be nice people by helping the poor (see my January 12^th post). But sometimes we can forget that Jesus did preach about hell, and he was awfully critical of the Jewish leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees). And so my hope is that by my looking at the times that Jesus was critical of people and actions, we can learn what disappoints our Lord the most, and from this learn to clean up our lives and our world through obedience.

My method is to not just take a flat statement (You shall not murder), but also to look at Jesus' actions (e.g., Jesus speaking to the woman at the well in John chapter 4.) In the Woman at the well story, Jesus showed us that the Jewish custom of men not speaking directly to women was wrong. Further, Jesus showed that the Jewish hostility to Samaritans was also wrong, and He did this merely by asking the Samaritan woman at the well for a drink of water. So now that you see what I am trying to show by compiling this list, so let's go and see where Jesus is critical of people and actions starting at His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 though 7):

 

Adultery; Matthew 5:27 (ESV)
You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'

All people are evil; Matthew 7:11 (ESV) ¹¹ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Those who are anxious about material things, food, clothing; Mt 6:25, :28, :34 (verse 32-33: the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. ³³ But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.)

Those who do not Ask God; Mt 7:7

Divorce, except in the case of infidelity; Matthew 5:32 (ESV) ³² But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Evil; Mt 6:13 (Lord's Prayer).

False Teachers who popularize lawlessness; Matthew 5:17; 5:19, 7:15 (ESV) ¹⁵ "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. (Context is narrow gate, wide gate (i.e., lawlessness) that leads to destruction.)

• Test false teachers by examining their fruit; Matthew 7:16 (ESV) ¹⁶ You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? (Good fruit includes good works, and the fruit of the Holy Spirit.)
  

  
   

Those who bear False Witness; Matthew 5:33 (ESV) ³³ "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'

Hypocrites; Don't Fast like them, they look gloomy to be seen by others; Mt 6:16-18.

Hypocrites; Prayer, don't be like the Hypocrites who pray to be seen by others; Matthew 6:5 (ESV)
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

Hypocrites, judging others; Mt 7:1-5

Infidelity; Matthew 5:32

Judging others; Mt 7:1

• Judging others is hypocrisy; Mt 7:3-5 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ⁴ Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
  

 

Law-breakers; Teachers of breaking the Law – Mt 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:19 (ESV)
¹⁹ Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Lawlessness is the wide gate that leads to destruction; Mt 7:13

Lawlessness, workers of; Matthew 7:21-23 (ESV) ²¹ "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²² On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' ²³ And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Those with Little Faith; Matthew 6:30-32 (ESV) ³⁰ But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? ³¹ Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' ³² For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.

Listening, failing to listen to Jesus and put his words into action equated with a foolish man who built his house on sand; Mt 5:26

Lust; Looking at a woman with lust in your heart; Matthew 5:28 (ESV) ²⁸ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Murderers; Matthew 5:21 (ESV)
You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'

Those who Persecute righteousness; Mt 5:10

Those who Persecute Christians, revile them, and speak falsely about them on account of Jesus; Mt 5:11

Those who do not resolve conflict; Matthew 5:23-24 (ESV) ²³ So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴ leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Those who Reject (repeatedly) Jesus and attack Jesus' teachings, they are dogs and pigs; Matthew 7:6 (ESV) ⁶ "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

Those who Resist evil; Matthew 5:39 (ESV) ³⁹ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Righteous Acts (Almsgiving, prayer, and fasting) done to be seen by other people; Mt 6:1-4

Salt with no salty taste is worthless; Mt 5:13

Those who See only the material; Matthew 6:22-23 (ESV) ²² "The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, ²³ but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! (Context is of material wealth).

Those who Serve Money, you cannot serve two masters; Mt 6:24

Those who Store up treasures on Earth, which are temporary; Mt 6:19

Those who Swear / take an oath to more than their 'Yes' or 'No"; Matthew 5:34-37 (ESV) ³⁴ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, ³⁵ or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. ³⁶ And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. ³⁷ Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

Tax collectors as a low standard of morality; Matthew 5:46 (ESV) ⁴⁶ For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Succumb to the Temptation of the Evil One; Mt 6:13 (Lord's Prayer).

Unforgiveness; Mt 6:12, :15 (Lord's Prayer).

Wordy Prayers; Mt 6:5

Words of Contempt / Anger; Matthew 5:22 (ESV) ²² But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.

 

Here are a couple of quick thoughts. Yes, Jesus hates hypocrisy, such as when a person criticizes another when he is guilty of doing the same thing (see, Matthew 7:1-5). But the other action that jumped out at me is being a law-breaker. Now the law-breaking that Jesus is speaking of here is not the kind when someone is driving above the speed limit. Instead, he attacks those who break God's Law, especially the 10 Commandments – Not honoring God (have no other Gods before Me, Thou shall not have false idols, Thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain, and honor the Sabbath Day and keep it holy); as well as harming others (honor your father and mother, Thou shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness and coveting what others have). These are the law-breakers Jesus opposes several times during the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17, 7:13 and 7:21-23), as well as teachers of lawlessness (Matthew 5:17, :5:19, 7:15). So Jesus right off the bat emphasizes the importance of God's Law here in the Sermon on the Mount.

I hope to have more on this topic of Who Jesus criticizes, but it is slow going. May God bless you with His love, joy and peace this day and upcoming week. /s/Tom

Kalam Cosmological Argument _ Point Three

March Madness is beginning, and the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament pairings will announced later today. Although the Gophers will not be in it, they should be a participant in the NIT Tournament. And the Big 10 will be well represented in the NCAA Big Dance, with both Michigan State and Ohio State looking strong enough to go deep into the tourney. Go Big 10!

On my bog, I am discussing the Kalam Cosmological argument with my old friends Ed and John. In today's post, we will be focusing our discussion on the third part of the Kalam argument, that the universe was created, and more importantly, that the universe was created by God. Here again, is the Kalam argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   
2. The universe began to exist.
   
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
   

For this post, we are assuming that the first two parts of the Kalam argument are proven true. So does this allow us to logically assume that the third point means that the universe was created by God? I believe it does, and I will bring up two arguments in support of my position: first, only a supernatural "cause" can be the agent of the universe's creation. And second, the Christian God as described in the Bible best describes Who is this supernatural Creator. So let's go, on to the argument!

Because Ed concedes that the universe started with the 'Big Bang', we have taken the idea of an eternal universe off of the table (See, Kalam Arg. #2). This also means that something outside of the universe is the agent for the universe's creation. The idea that the universe created itself is an absurdity – something cannot be created by nothing. And so, the assumption is that there is that something outside of the universe which is the cause of its creation.

Let's think about the points that the Kalam argument has argued for: a) that the ultimate cause of the universe must be supernatural (i.e., it must lie outside the natural universe) and b) the ultimate cause of the universe must itself be uncaused. Think about how many things fit the following set of descriptions:

x is powerful enough to bring the universe into existence.

x is sufficiently knowledgeable to create a universe like ours with all of its natural laws and complex configurations of matter and energy.

x is not made out of matter or energy and is not located in four-dimensional space-time (i.e., x is not part of the natural universe).

x does not depend upon anything besides itself for its existence.

(I got this last section from somewhere on the web, but I don't remember the website.) I suggest that only one thing that fits that description: God. Consequently, this means that the Kalam argument proves the existence of God.

To support this conclusion, is my second point in today's post. There is only one religion which best describes the identity of the supernatural agent Who created the universe – the God of the Bible. There are many reasons to suggest that the Bible is itself a supernatural creation, including a number of prophecies which came true. But most importantly, the Bible best describes the main problem of humanity – the sin of people. And further it describes God's solution to this problem when He sent His Son Jesus the Messiah to die on the Cross for humanity's sins. That through faith in Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross in our place (sin's punishment is death), we receive absolution for our sins (release from guilt, obligation, and punishment), and just as important, we receive the ability to start living like Jesus Himself. The fruit of this new life includes love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (See, Galatians 5:22). With a new life in Jesus, we are blessed not only in this life, but also in the life to come. /s/Tom Wolff

The Second Response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Here is my quick summary of the discussion I am having with Edward Oleander (his pseudonym). We are looking at the Kalam Cosmological argument, which is a "proof" for the existence of God - which simply states:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   
2. The universe began to exist.
   
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
   

In Ed's first response, he disagreed with all three of these positions. His first Response, and my reply were posted here on February 19^th. Here is Ed's second response:

 

Ed: Making it simple is really tough, because there isn't a nice simple answer. The response I gave WAS simple, because I sure don't understand the nuances of M-Theory. John went way further in Physics than I did, and might be able to explain it better than I can. Do you remember when I used to joke about my "All points are the same" theory? It looks like I have may have been closer than I realized. If M-Theory pans out, it might turn out that every particle in the universe travels EVERYWHERE simultaneously, which would effectively mean that space is actually non-existent. The big challenge left for M-Theory and Quantum theory is that they don't mesh well yet. We still have lots more to learn. Hawking has convinced me that some sub-atomic particle do indeed pop out of nothing, then disappear again... The Grand Design is his most readable work yet, thanks to his lab assistant who does most of the writing, but he doesn't even get into the guts of the math that substantiates his claims, since it would be like trying to read ancient Greek even for me. Clay might have the best grasp of anyone I know.

 

I firmly believe in the Big Bang, and we keep getting closer to being able to describe how it worked. The philosophical discussion is about what came before the Big Bang, and is ours the only universe there is? We can accurately describe the universe to within 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th of a second after the Big Bang, but then things get fuzzy. What we know as the Laws of Physics didn't begin to form until that point, so we don't know how to quantify what happened before that tiny amount of time had passed. Hawking thinks there could be as many as (editor's note, Ed actually wrote out the number, but by my eyeball count it is somewhere near 1 x 10 to the 250^th power) distinct universes besides our own...

 

Tom's Reply: Here is what I know about Stephen Hawking's "M-Theory" from my two minutes looking at it online: "M-theory" deals with the "superstring theory". It doesn't look like it's helpful, because it lacks predictive power, and it's untestable (see, Wikipedia entry for "M-Theory"). It doesn't even sound like it has many supporters, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up, other than its interesting to talk about something you've read.

 

Now when you bring up the possibility of there being a lot of "multi-verses", this is an argument that I can get my tiny-little head around. Let's sidestep Hawking's use of the math to support his idea of multi-verses for now. But because you have told me that you accept the 'Big Bang' theory, and that there is a finite number of other universes out there, I believe that you have conceded Point 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument – Judge John, can I have a ruling here?

 

But Hawking's number is soooo large that to me it's an imaginary number. So even if you claim there are an infinite number of "multi-verses" out there, I don't think this helps your argument. If you are claiming that there are an infinite number of other universes then you are saying that all possibilities exist somewhere. So people like Hawking, assume that with so many universes, it is possible that in at least one of them, life will exist on Earth. Wasn't there a Star Trek episode on this, with the good Spock, and the evil Spock meeting?

 

But getting back to the philosophical argument of whether the universe began to exist – if you believe that there are infinite other realities out there, how can you be sure of anything? Isn't this some sort of philosophical fallacy where you are arguing that somewhere out there anything is possible, so we can't trust anything we understand? You said :"It gets way weirder than that even... If Hawking is right, then what you remember from yesterday might not have happened. The past is only a set of probabilities based on what happens in the future. Because you remember yesterday, there is a really, really, really, high probability that it will always be the past, but it is mathematically possible for it to change…" By making this argument, aren't you falling victim to a tautology: if everything can be true, nothing is.

 

So on what points do we have an agreement on? And is this helping in crystallizing your thoughts on this topic? Thanks again for the discussion. /s/Tom

Kalam Cosmological Argument _ A Response

Edward Oleander offered his rejection of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, succinctly stated as follows:

Edward Oleander: There is so much wrong with the Kalam argument that it would take several volumes to refute it properly and in completeness.

 

In summary: it is the God of the Gaps fallacy, compounded by pride and wishful thinking. It revolves around a bunch of assumptions that have either (been) shattered by recent science, or were never sound in the first place.

 

For consistency sake, I'll use the Sheffield definition for the working definition of the Kalam Argument. See also the. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument"

 

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. BUZZ! This has not been shown to be true. It is based on intuition, observation, and "common sense." NONE of these are reliable on either a cosmological or quantum level. I just finished reading Stephen Hawking's, "The Grand Design," where intuition and common sense have lost their power to blind us. We actually had the evidence for this back in 1928, but no one wanted to believe it. Now the mathematics supports the testable, observable effects (Google the Soccer Ball Effect). Logical observation, "Well, ANY fool can plainly see..." only implies a lot of fools, and is proven NOT reliable at the quantum level. In fact, the "http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html">Gorilla Experiment</a> shows that personal observation isn't very reliable at all...

 

 

Tom's Response: OK, you have already lost me with your bringing up the quantum level, and your rejection of intuition and common sense. Make it simple for me by giving me an example – what is something that begins but does NOT have a cause.

 

I kind of get the mathematical concept of something that does not have an origin. For example, a line goes infinitely in both directions, with no beginning or end. In my (yes, somewhat simplistic) mind, I have thought of God in the same way – He does not have a beginning, and stretches infinitely forward and backward. While people like you and me are simple points or line segments on that line.

 

 

2) The universe had a beginning. BUZZ! Since the actual flash-point of the Big Bang is still under controversy, one cannot say what state (if any) this universe was (or wasn't) under before the Big Bang. The possibility that there had been a previous universe is at least as likely as the opposite. You can't even talk about this previous universe occupying the same physical and virtual space as ours, because if it existed, it may have had totally different boundaries and governing principles. For all we know, our universe is only one of many, and may have "budded" off an older universe, again with possibly differing set of physical and virtual laws. Hawking estimates that under "M-Theory," the latest and greatest naturalogical explanation of everything, there could be 10^500 universes. I don't pretend to understand the math, but he uses that figure repeatedly. Under 'Brane Theory (now subsumed, along with all five String Theories, into M-Theory), these universes could have propagated very quickly, perhaps in the space of minutes (as we know minutes).

 

 

Tom's Response: I am not sure of what you are saying here. Are you saying that you do not believe in the 'Big Bang' theory, and that you do believe in the alternate universe / 'Brane' theory? You know that I am not a big student of science, so take my comment in that light. But doesn't the presence of background radiation in our universe show that the universe was started with the Big Bang? I did see that on the CalTech website (link here), and they used such terms as "just about every scientist" and "overwhelming" (scientific) evidence to support the 'Big Bang' theory. Here is their quote: "…Today, just about every scientist believes in the big bang model. The evidence is overwhelming enough that in 1951, the Catholic Church officially pronounced the big bang model to be in accordance with the Bible..." If you really do not believe in the 'Big Bang' theory, what is it about the alternative 'Brane' theory that makes you believe it is true?

 

 

3) The universe has a cause of its existence. BUZZ! - Until you come up with valid premises, you cannot claim a valid argument, let alone a conclusion.

 

So much for the Kalam argument. So let us set out the Kalam "theory" as it should really read.

 

For this section, the scientific labeling process goes:

 

Pride: An ego-based idea that we are better than all other life forms on Earth (or even the universe), as witnessed by our unique intelligence and capacity for altruism and self-sacrifice.

 

Wishful Thinking: Something that a person really, really wants to be true, but has no solid evidence to go on.

 

Conjecture: The sketchy outline of an idea, often with large gaps in the total process.

 

Assumption: A conjecture that is assumed to be true ONLY for the sake of advancing an argument or thought exercise.

 

Hypothesis: A fleshed out conjecture that appears okay on paper, but has not yet been tested for repeatability or predictive accuracy)

 

Theory: A Hypothesis that has been shown repeatable, testable outcomes and has satisfied predictions based on its tenets. The most well documented Theories are considered facts.

 

Law: A Theory which is so strong, and has proven so accurate that it is deemed unassailable for nearly all cases. Gravity and Thermodynamics are examples.

 

Tom's Response: I'll wait to address your response to Kalam's Argument #3, until you have answered my responses provided above. But as to your divisions ranging from Pride to Law, let me ask you two quick questions: Where does the Big Bang Theory fall on your scale? And where does the alternate theory that you believe in besides the 'Big Bang' fall on this scale?

Thanks for the discussion. I praise Jesus for being our Lord, Savior and Teacher, and may He bless us this upcoming week. /s/Tom Wolff

Does God Exist? The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Happy end of January to you. I am in an email discussion with two friends on the philosophical argument showing God's existence. The first argument that is being used is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam argument was named after the Kalam tradition of Islamic discursive philosophy through which it was first formulated. In Arabic, the word Kalam means "words, discussion, discourse." The cosmological argument was first introduced by Aristotle and later refined by Al-Kindi, and Al-Ghazali. In Western Europe, it was adopted by the Christian theologian and Saint of the Roman Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas. (this from Wikipedia.) And the argument is summarized as follows:

Angelfire website: M. Sheffield

_______________

What evidence is there that God exists? here is one proof; it's called the Kalam cosmological argument. It is a cosmological argument because it has to do with the cosmos, or the universe. The argument may be formulated as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   
2. The universe began to exist.
   
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
   

After establishing the first two premises, the conclusion, that the universe has a cause, logically follows, forming a valid argument. So how does this outcome act as evidence which points to God's existence? As we will see, many inferences can be made about the characteristics that can be applied to this First Cause, absent of any special revelation.

What ever begins to exist has a cause. This is called the Law of Causality and is usually non-controversial, for most realize intuitively that a cause is necessary for the existence of something. Imagine a police chase down a busy express-way where a bank robber is accelerating at dangerously high speeds. The thief soon looses control, slamming into the concrete wall, ending the pursuit. As police enter the vehicle they drag the man out, immediately handcuffing him, and locate the hulking bag of stolen money in the passenger seat. When questioned about where the money came from, the bank robber calmly replied, "Nowhere."
"Nowhere?" the officer asked.
"Yeah, it came from nowhere," the robber repeated. The officer paused and looked at the overflowing sack of cash, then back at the thief.
"Okay." And he released the man.

A story like this is extremely unlikely, unless the police officer is trying to lose his job of course. Why? Because most people realize that something cannot come from nothing. What may be important is to try and picture nothingness in your mind. If you have succeeded in imagining nothingness, then you have already failed because nothing is nothing, and if you are picturing something, then that is clearly not nothing. Absolute nothingness is not some vast empty space, because even empty space is something. Once one grasps the concept of absolute nothingness, it is clear that something cannot pop into existence from nothing without some cause to explain its existence.

_______________

Ex nihilo, nihil fit, "nothing comes from nothing."

_______________

We can be confident in the Law of Causality for a couple of reasons. First our everyday experience confirms it and it is never falsified. Have you ever witnessed something pop into existence, out of thin air without a cause? Me neither. Actually, the exact opposite always happens. When something begins to exist, that is, something at one time did not exist, and then later on it does exist, a cause is always involved. Take a table for example. When you look at a table, do you ever think to yourself, "I wonder if someone made that table, or if it just popped into existence uncaused?" No, because we know by experience that the Law of Causality is true. Someone had to have made that table. Secondly, the Law of Causality is verified by Science. Science would be impossible if not for the Law of Causality, for what is science if not a search for causes? The point is that something cannot come from nothing. What does come from nothing? Ex nihilo, nihil fit, "nothing comes from nothing." …

Summary of the Commands Jesus gave the most

Summary of the Commands Jesus gave the most.

I had a friend recently send me some verses on giving to the needy, and I wondered if this was really the focus of Jesus' teaching (it is). So I looked back to the Commands of Jesus that I posted back in October / November 2008 to see what Commands Jesus gave the most (as reported by His disciples in the Gospels). If you believe as I do that repetition is done for emphasis, then the fact of some commands being given more than others is to stress their importance. And yes, the single most repeated Command of Jesus is to love others by giving to the needy and to have generosity (24 times). But close behind it is the Command to 'Listen' (22 times), for example Jesus taught that we should listen and give special attention to the Scriptures. Another interesting fact is that Jesus did not teach repeatedly that we should not murder, nor lie, nor steal. These are only mentioned a couple of times each. But what was the main sin Jesus taught most about? We are taught not to have fear, doubt and being anxious (10 times). And overall, Jesus' Commands dealt much less significantly with Sin than with His Commands on loving others. I broke down the Commands of Jesus into three main categories, and here are the top five Commands from each category:

I.    Commands of Jesus – by Obedience to God;

1. Listen / Give Special Attention to / Remember – taught 22 times;
   
2. Believe / Faith – 15 times;
   
3. Pray / Prayer – 13 times;
   
4. Abide in God / Jesus – 6 times;
   
5. Forsake / Renounce / Surrender all – 6 times.
   

II.    Commands of Jesus – involving fruit and others;

1. Love Others / Giving – taught 24 times;
   
2. Love others – 19 times;
   
3. Virtue – Love others / Family -19 times;
   
4. Virtue / Moral Behavior – 15 times;
   
5. Love Others – Evangelize – 13 times.
   

III.    Sin – Commandments enjoining / Guard Against;

1. Do not be anxious / doubt / fear / indecision – taught 10 times;
   
2. Do not commit adultery – 5 times;
   
3. Avoid world entanglement – 5 times;
   
4. Do not divorce – 4 times;
   
5. Selfish ambition – 4 times.
   

And Jesus also gave us the number one reason of why we should we follow His Commands, and this is contained in John 14:15 - If you love Me, keep My commandments. If you would like the verse lists for any of the Commands, feel free to contact me, and I can get them to you. May God bless you this week. /s/Tom

Merry Christmas 2011

It's been a wonderful Christmas for the Wolff family this year. Last night we saw both Peggy's side of the family, and we had the full complement of the Wolff family at my parent's celebration. And my Mom's oyster stew was out of this world!

Merry Christmas to you. Today's post will talk about the source of the Good News of Christmas – that God Himself came to Earth in the form of human flesh. Yes, that's right, Jesus is God. More correctly put, Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son. Here are some Bible verses showing Jesus' Divinity:

Job 19:26 (NKJV)
²⁶ And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, That in my flesh I shall see God,

Jeremiah 23:6 (ESV)
⁶ In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The Lord is our righteousness.'

John 1:1-2 (ESV)
¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God.

John 20:28 (ESV)
²⁸ Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Acts 20:28 (ESV)
²⁸ Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

1 Corinthians 2:8 (ESV)
⁸ None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Romans 9:5 (ESV)
⁵ To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Colossians 2:9 (ESV)
⁹ For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Philippians 2:6 (ESV)
⁶ who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Titus 2:13 (ESV)
¹³ waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Hebrews 1:8 (ESV)
⁸ But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

1 John 5:20 (ESV)
²⁰ And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

So this Christmas praise our Divine Savior, who saves us all from the judgment our sin deserves. And we can claim this gift of salvation and forgiveness through repentance and faith. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you all.